People like us

Some time late last year, pre-Monopoly money, in what could very well be described as a latitudinarian decision, a Canadian judge okayed a nudist group's late-night skinny dipping gatherings at a local pool in a Vancouver suburb on the premise that since they were essentially private affairs, the public had no business being shocked by what they could not see or hear.

Around the same time, and in what was described as a very exceptional case, a British judge upheld two brothers' wishes to remain in Britain with their father and not return to France with their mother, after hearing how the boys had failed to settle down in a southern French town where they were clearly unhappy.

I stumbled upon both these stories last November and they coincided with a few letters that our local papers carried criticising the seemingly arbitrary way judges and magistrates decide sensitive domestic issues like access and visiting rights without any regard to the wishes of the children.

I often stop to think about the people who are chosen to sit in judgment of others and who do so for a living. When you think about the magnitude of the task at hand, the responsibility, the almost god-like implications that come with the territory, it is something that is almost mystical and very hard to comprehend. The idea that one single human being holds the key to another person's life - a person he has never met or spoken to before. It almost beggars belief. It defies logic and yet it happens every day, all the time. The whole concept of the judiciary is one that perplexes and fascinates me no end.

One of the most curious realisations you come to understand as a lawyer is that witnesses to the same scene will never ever entirely agree on what they saw and that in itself does not make either of them dishonest. People attach importance to different things. More significantly - people see the same thing differently. And judges, of course, are no exception. Another judge may have put an end to the late night skinny dipping or may have sent the boys to France. And that would not necessarily have made the judgments any less fair or erudite.

Nobody is born an adjudicator. Before they are appointed to the task, these people have usually spent the last 30, 40 or 50 years going about their lives in pretty much the same way we all do. Human beings go through life making value judgments about everyone and everything that comes their way. We may not admit it, we may even deny it, but we are forever unconsciously formulating opinions about the people that cross our paths, based on notions and criteria which may be utterly ridiculous and non-sensical, but which we nonetheless continue to apply.

It may be the reason the world didn't fall madly in love with Kate and Gerry McCann. Somehow she looked just a little too good for someone in her predicament. How does a woman who has just lost her daughter remember to wear earrings? How come the pony tail was always perfectly in place, replete with ribbon; how come both of them always looked emotionally constipated; since when does losing your daughter make you just 'anxious'?

It does sound unfair. Perhaps we'd have liked her more if she were less angular and more rotund with a little more weight on her. Or if they wept uncontrollably. It's terrible. It's the way we are. Nothing escapes our notice. Be it chipped nail polish or a cheap suit; a face piercing or a tattooed scalp, you can rest assured we've clocked it. Name, school, accent, pronunciation, profanity, shoes, socks, accessories, level of hygiene, fat, thin, may all be critical factors. Even the brand of cigarettes you smoke might be indicative and the way you hold your cigarette is crucial. Cars may tell a story. It's not about how expensive the car is. You can drive the cheapest car around and get away with it. Similarly you can drive the most expensive car out there and get it wrong. There are many giveaways. Forget tinted windows, spoilers, big flashy stickers and dangly bits spilling out from behind the mirror. The list is endless. Human beings are judgmental and that is a fact.

I've never really believed people who claim they don't pre-judge people before getting to know them, because that is what first impressions are all about. In time we may find we were wrong. That beneath that emotionally constipated exterior, angular, chiselled feature and ramrod disposition, there's a lovely warm person waiting to be discovered.

People make their minds up on the basis of a number of considerations. Everyone is coming from somewhere. And it's the same with the people who sit up on high. They each have a past which is bound to determine their agenda, their outlook and approach. Women judges will probably differ from male judges, generation gaps may play a part. Notwithstanding their promise to society to be impartial, fair and not to bring any baggage or prejudice to the bench, they are going to need to bring their own life experiences and they must perforce rely on their intuition, feelings and reserves - be they emotional, educational or other.

A judge who has spent 40 years of his life battling his son's drug habit, or who has lost his only daughter to drinking and driving may differ in his treatment of offenders, to other judges who may have not experienced either tragedy. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

There are always going to be instances when those who have to judge do not fall 'instantly in love' with the gum chewing, arrogant, slap-able accused, who thinks the world owes him a living. And they may well experience that initial aversion, which happens to the best of us.

I suppose the reverse situation is also true - sometimes you just can't help liking somebody you may have never met before, for no apparent reason. It's inexplicable. It's that crazy thing called chemistry which is transmitted instantly, even in a court room. It would be a bad thing if the gum and the earring got in the way of a justice. And it would be equally dire if 'love at first sight' got in the way. And that is what judges promise not to do. In the final analysis, we want adjudicators who are human. It's the very element that people look for in a judge. Without that, you may as well have polygraph lie detector machines.

mspiteri@itt.net.mt